Varg Vikernes to Stand Trial for Inciting Racial Hatred and Glorifying War Crimes

Burzum mastermind Varg Vikernes will reportedly stand trial on charges of inciting racial hatred and glorifying war crimes through his official blog posts.
As UPI reports, Varg will face the court in June 2014 and could face up to five years behind bars.
Vikernes was previously arrested with his wife in July under the suspicion of preparing a "major terrorist act" described as a "massacre." Although both were initially released without any charges, Varg will now face the trial on his own.
The initial arrest had Varg linked with mass murderer Anders Breivik, the man responsible for the death of 77 Norwegians back in July 2011 Oslo massacre. However, Vikernes condemned Breivik's actions, hoping he would commit suicide. After his release, the musician announced that he will be suing the French authorities for having no legal right to place him under arrest and break into his home.
"The French authorities had no reason to arrest us in the first place," he said. "We had done nothing wrong, and they never had any evidence suggesting otherwise. They shot our door open, traumatized our children, threw my pregnant wife and me in holding cells and kept us there for two-three days."

Indeed you cannot legally arrest someone in the US without cause, and hate speech is not a crime. It was something that we were proud of until we found out we could be arrested for anything under the guise of terrorist activity. You have to watch what you say on the internet because it can really bite you in the ass regardless of if we have free speech or not

And in countries that do criminalise hate speech, we are proud to say that we will not simply sit back and allow certain groups to be publicly humiliated and persecuted by those talking from behind the veil of "free speech". Anyone who believes words can cause no harm is misinformed.
Besides, there's a big difference between saying bad stuff and actively encouraging people to do bad stuff, which is what inciting racial hatred means.

exactly, just look at a lot of the German laws regarding free speech. They are definitely an attempt to erase German history circa 1933-45. Didn't they even try to make Swastikas outright illegal but couldn't since it's essentially the same thing as the Buddhist Manji, which the Buddhists used to symbolize good fortune pre-Nazism being a thing. The video game Wolfinstein 3D was banned in Germany because there are "too many swastikas" in the game, even though the objective of the game is killin' nazis.

German censorship laws regarding the Nazi era are not in anyway about erasing the past. I'm assuming you've never been to Germany because there are memorials / reminders in most towns. Right wing extremism is still a very big problem in Germany, especially in the east. The laws are designed to make it more difficult for neo-nazis to replicate past hate-crimes.

Everyone in this comment section is talking about freedom of speech. Fair enough. People can have their opinion and voice it all they want. HOWEVER, he has been charged with *inciting racial hatred*. That goes beyond freedom of speech, when what one man says can physically harm other people.
All those people here proclaiming freedom of speech, how would you feel if you were sent death threats (or at least someone saying that they wished you were dead/ believed you should be dead)? Does freedom of speech cover any kind of threatening language?

This, so much this. Guys, freedom of speech =/= "you're allowed to say all kinds of harmful and loathful racist garbage because you're a nordic version of Hitler". People underestimate how ****ed up the far-right can be. Just look at Greece right now.

The thing is, you're still just talking about people SAYING things. That's exactly what free speech is. You can SAY whatever the **** you want, because it's just TALK. DOING is entirely different, but SAYING something, anything, cannot be punished in a society that fancies itself "free". No matter how ****ed up something someone is saying is, if you've ever said, "this guy should be arrested for SAYING...", you are a ****ing fascist. Period. End of story.

The effects of hate speech in society are too big to be put under the "it's just talk" veredict. Especially when they are meant to make racial tensions rise, in order to contextualize the far-right's hate agenda and spread their words around. Take a look at Joseph Goebbels' example. He did exactly what I've said. So did every single right-wing extremist in the world's history. That being said... no I'm not a fascist, I'm the polar opposite of it, that's why I want them to shut the **** up about their hate-fueled speech. Do you even know what "fascism" is?

The right to express ones self greatly outweighs the right of anyone to get offended. People say shit all the time that upsets me. I get the **** over it, because I wouldn't want to live in a society that suppresses ideas. No idea is above criticism and no idea should be forcefully silenced. That use to be the hallmark of western society. If the west has anything it should be proud of, it's that.

Think you're over-simplifying the issue. It's not a case of someone 'just saying' something. Incitement to violence is not the same as expressing free speech. Extremist clerics who encourage muslims to carry out attacks against westerners, bigoted church groups spreading hate messages against target groups, even Charles Manson - telling those who followed him to commit acts of murder. These surely cannot be seen as harmless acts of free speech?

They can't even get the facts right. "The initial arrest had Varg linked with mass murderer Anders Breivik" is not true, the only thing that "linked" them was Berivik sending Varg a copy of his manifesto.

Freedom of Speech is no doubt important, but you are allowed to use Your brain before you Express yourself. People have the right to be treated With dignity and respect as well. You are entitled to belive what you wish, but is really neccesary to spread hatred and beliefs that certain People don't have the right to live because they are inferior ?

The freedom of speech is important because it includes ALL speech, which would even include symbolic speech, and even hate speech (which conflicts a little with later laws, but eh, w/e). I believe the idea is beautiful, it allows for a free marketplace of ideas to exist, where the dumb ones (such as racism, misogyny, etc.) get filtered out naturally. When we all realize that opinions are only that, and don't have to have any effect on you, those opinions can be ignored and dismissed for you personally. If that happens on a grand scale, those ideas lose their power. But eh, I'm just daydreaming perhaps.

He really deserves it, he's so absorved by his own ideals he wont listen to nobody else. He posts false information saying its FACTS and then when someone shows him he is wrong he just deletes the posts and crys "I wont talk to you!".
I really like his music but he lost all my respect when he did that to me (and a lot of other people).

The meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech" varies from country to country guys. In Germany you cannot publicly deny the Holocaust or promote any type of Nazism. The German people chose this law, and I respect whatever the hell they decide is inappropriate in their country. I'm assuming the same thing happened to Varg, because freedom of speech to an American, like myself, is not the same everywhere.

Freedom of speech is assuredly vital to any decent society, but it also comes with responsibility, and part of that is having the freedom and maturity to keep your gob shut sometimes, or as I like to think of it, "The volume knob also turns left".

So speaking your mind or saying what you think is okay sometimes, but if you offend too many people or are too "over the top", then it's not okay? Too bad they didn't put that in the Constitution. Should have worded it just like that too, right? Then we could have a committee on "Over the Top Speech".

I assume by "the constitution" you mean the American constitution. I also assume that, if that is indeed what you were referring to, your too stupid to realise that no one involved in his case gives a shit about "the constitution" as he is being tried in France and they follow their own laws.

I'm assuming you're (see what I did there. It's called grammar. Perhaps you should learn to use it) too stupid to realize exactly what I was trying to point out, so let me make it clearer for your smooth brain (this isn't a compliment by the way): freedom of speech is interpreted in a variety of different ways around the world. It does not simply mean you can say whatever the hell you want, because I assume France, like most countries, has laws regulating what you can and cannot say. If you want a philosophical debate concerning your "right" to say whatever the hell you want, I would love to hear it; although, I'm not expecting much from you. I don't want to spend the time sifting through every post, but iommi600 and SOADplayer2 are the only ones making any sense to me so far. However, let's end on a positive note. Imagine someone disagrees with your definition of freedom of speech. How do you respond? Let's say I claim, "freedom of speech does not protect sedition, hate speech, fighting words, verbal abuse, and fear mongering because they incite civil unrest and generate a lot of harm. Words are not just sounds, e.g. "speech-acts." Do you think freedom of speech protects a parent viciously berating his or her child because they're just words, and when her ideas come to the proverbial marketplace they will just naturally be filtered out? I wonder why this hasn't happened with a number of sexist thoughts in English. Perhaps it's because this is a crock of shite, but I digress...

Oh dear. I am dreadfully sorry M3AK. I thought you were responding to me instead of that vapid piece of waste above my wikipedia citation. I apologize for the insults; I was upset and let my feelings get the best of me. Most of my points still stand though. Good day. :cheers:

People here are still confusing freedom of speech (which I support) and inciting racial hatred. Inciting is different to speaking. Inciting racial hatred is saying something that you know could CAUSE criminal activity. So much dumb in these comments - research the difference before you go off spouting bollocks.

Sometimes the best thing you can do to fight extreme, hateful views is simply let the person say what he stands for. If someone were to say, "This person is an idiot because he thinks 'so and so' should be able to vote, exist, marry or whatever", he just proved himself a moron by his own words. However, there is the old yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater example of "inciting". There is an obvious difference. In the cases where it isn't so obvious, that is what courts are for (at least in the U.S.A). You bring up a valid point.

upto I saw the draft of $5932, I accept that...my... mother in law was truley making money part-time from their computer.. there aunt has done this for under eleven months and resently repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a great Smart ForTwo. look at this web-site http://www.jobs64.com